Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Mar 15, 2003 1:34pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: mp3????


Brad, you make some good points, especially where bandwidth is concerned, which is obviously a big problem here -- and everywhere.

It seems to me that if there was some sort of band "bio" section added for each band, with links to the band website, fan websites, a couple of live mp3 samples and such it might satisfy some of this. But frankly most bands that are here already have websites with samples available in mp3 format, but even so I think it might be valuable here as well. Perhaps also general band level comments/reviews could be included as well.

The idea though of putting up mp3 samples from each seed seems to me to be too much (and I'm not sure it was even suggested in the thread).

Enhancing the meta-data for the seeds here, and on db.etree.org, would help as well in determining seed quality without listening (in many cases).

Clearly all of this is a WIP and development continues, but I think we have the basic tools here and I think the review section is a very under utilized feature that would help tremendously when would-be downloaders are surveying sources. That said, I don't particularly like the STAR thingy --- I mean a review could be about the performance itself, the recording, the seed/transfer job or any other manner of issues and often stars are not useful.

.02 more

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: Mar 15, 2003 9:17pm
Forum: etree Subject: Metadata

Enhancing the meta-data for the seeds here, and on db.etree.org, would help as well in determining seed quality without listening (in many cases).

I'm a huge fan of good metadata. I'm curious in what ways you think it could be "enhanced" - by adding more information to details pages? By cleaning it up? One thing that I tend to do with the details pages is just clean it up, and it's a big task.

Interested in being a QA admin? :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Mar 16, 2003 2:45am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Metadata

I'm a huge fan of good metadata. I'm curious in what ways you think it could be "enhanced" - by adding more information to details pages? By cleaning it up? One thing that I tend to do with the details pages is just clean it up, and it's a big task.

Interested in being a QA admin? :)


Actually Jon I am doing what I can to be a QA for the Kimock stuff already here and on db.etree.org. I think uniformity of the source, lineage, and setlist info is key. I think that so additional fields might help as well for instance DAE yes/no ? Also for Kimock at least we like to identify the guitars Steve uses for each song as part of the setlist. I think that 3 source fields would be useful: recording, transfer or mastering, and encoding. I think that the meta-data field values should be appreviated to and some things should be left for the info file only like most cable branding, and most setting info (ie mastering parameters). With a uniform appearance I believe that a downloader can, at a glance, see what they are dealing with source wise.

Of course each band's taping community has different standards and practices, so it is tough to implement this archive wide.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bleblanc Date: Mar 16, 2003 6:57am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Metadata

The idea though of putting up mp3 samples from each seed seems to me to be too much (and I'm not sure it was even suggested in the thread).

I can appreciate that comment, it would be a large task. Anyway, judging from the heated posts about it, I think this issue is a little too controversial to implement right now. We might have to come up with something else down the road.

I think that the meta-data field values should be appreviated to and some things should be left for the info file only like most cable branding, and most setting info (ie mastering parameters)

I agree with you - I think we'd have a REAL hard time standardizing this with every seed in here. It's a daunting task, and isn't something that we'll get unanimous support for. Despite that, I'm another supporter of standardizing the fields on the show detail pages. It does make browsing a lot easier. To make it happen, we just need more people to do the QA work.

I'm curious, regarding the 'encoding' field, what would you plan on having go into it? All I can think of is 'mkwACT' or 'flac16' - and I'm not sure there would be a benefit in having a separate field for it. Feel free to enlighten me though.

-Brad

This post was modified by bleblanc57 on 2003-03-16 14:57:11

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Mar 17, 2003 3:56am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Metadata


I'm curious, regarding the 'encoding' field, what would you plan on having go into it? All I can think of is 'mkwACT' or 'flac16' - and I'm not sure there would be a benefit in having a separate field for it. Feel free to enlighten me though.


Check out some of the standardizations I am doing over at db.etree.org for kimock:

http://db.etree.org/shnlist.php?artist=141&year=2003

The encoding "field" is for the last DAE step if any, and encoding info (FLAC, SHN, APE). In many cases it is simply WAV > SHN or some such but it can be more like seek tables appended, EAC info, etc.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: nbrown Date: Mar 17, 2003 5:35pm
Forum: etree Subject: lotta mics onstage

thats pretty cool that kimock allows that many mics setup on stage....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Mar 18, 2003 8:20am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: lotta mics onstage


yeah we are truly blessed in the Kimock community.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Mar 17, 2003 3:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Metadata

I agree with you - I think we'd have a REAL hard time standardizing this with every seed in here. It's a daunting task, and isn't something that we'll get unanimous support for. Despite that, I'm another supporter of standardizing the fields on the show detail pages. It does make browsing a lot easier. To make it happen, we just need more people to do the QA work.

I agree it is a daunting task and agreement, even amongst the admin team of one band, can be difficult to reach. It might help to put together some guidelines, and I plan on doing just that for the Kimock stuff.